Patrick Chew scripsit:

> Well, there seems to be quite a bit of nice documentation...
> although, I personally have some nitpicky things to disagree with in
> there... especially regarding the classification of Korean hangul, the
> typology of the syllabary, and to some degree the "definition" for 'syllabary'.

"Infinite are the arguments of mages."
--Ursula K. Le Guin

> Having read the posts in this group, there's a lot more
> information to be had that could be edited to provide readily available
> information...

Feel free to compile such a document and post it to the Yahoo! Groups site.

> "widely understood term"... once again, it comes down to that
> "Lowest Common Denominator" business, if a community that specializes in a
> subject has particular parlance with its issues, etc. and has controversy
> or dissatisfaction with terminology or jargon regarding said field,
> shouldn't they be the ones to spur the movement to correct such
> inconsistencies or inaccuracies? or at least to provide rationale for
> otherwise non-conventionalized (in the mainstream) use?

I think the key phrase is "No term is [...] uncontroversial". What that is
so (for every expert who claims a particular term is standard, an equal and
opposite expert can be found who claims otherwise), an outsider group like
the Unicode Consortium has to make some sort of choice, and apparently
decided to go with the most familiar term, however inaccurate.

John Cowan <jcowan@...>
"One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script. One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'" --Beverly Erlebacher